StatsPolice

Already talked about Heisman finalists here. A random 5* has better odds of becoming a Heisman finalist (roughly 3%) and winning than a random 4* (roughly 0.4%) or lower. This is very easy math. You can try to skew it however you want, but 5* players win at a higher rate than anyone else. Period. I don't see how this can be looked at any other way.

If I gave you the choice between two lottery tickets and told you one had a 3% chance of hitting and one had a 0.4% chance of hitting, which one would you choose?

Draft percentages seem to be a much better way to evaluate whether stars matter or not anyway. 5* players dominate that category as well

Is that the conclusion you got from my post? Let me put it another way.

Using a conservative estimate of 37 five stars each year and 375 four stars each year (roughly based on 247 rankings), a random five star has about a 3% chance, on average, of becoming a Heisman finalist. A random four star has about a 0.4% chance of becoming a Heisman finalist.

Five stars also get drafted at twice the rate of four stars.

Given the choice between a five star recruit and a four star recruit, which one would you choose?